--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> My money is on Strabo. It is difficult to explain away
>
> 1) that Strabo in this passage is referring to a campaign on behalf
> of Mithridates against the barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus
> (of Perekop) as far as the Borysthenes (Dniepr) and the Adriatic
>
> GK: The Adriatic must be a mistake. This makes no sense at all
> in the context of 110-108 BCE.
To me it does, sorry. Could you elaborate on why you think it couldn't be so?
****GK: Well I thought there was something wrong with this statement as read in the Strabo we have from the first time I read it, since I could see no way of reconciling it with other sources. I didn't know the Plutarch quote (thanks again!). That made it possible to try my emendation (along the lines I tried with Pliny earlier but there it was a missing bit I think). I'm going to stick with it if the interpretation is as to what Mithradates actually did at that time (or soon after) though additional points could emerge. For instance, one could elaborate by assuming that shortly before 91 the Scythians again attacked Chersonesos and Mithridates sent an army which actually crossed the isthmus (Diophantes didn't).*****
> Tyras does, whence my suggested emendation.
For 'Adrias' to make sense, Mithridates must have planned an invasion of Rome already at that time. Why couldn't he have? Hannibal knew Carthage would come to blows with Rome
sooner or later. Why couldn't Mithridates have sensed the same?
****GK: I would have to agree if one meant plans and dreams rather than actual deeds. Mithridates waxs obviously an educated monarch who would have read all about Alexander and his exploits. He could certainly dream about crushing Rome very early. And he must have known about the battle of Noreia even before his initial intervention (via Diophantes) on behalf of the Chersonesites against the Scythians (a challenge that, for someone who secretly may have planned to emulate Alexander).*****
> I would surmise that some copyist erroneously substituted "Adrias".
Yes, you have to do that. I don't.
> There is a similarity in Strabo's account of the fall of Bactria
> (acc. to some scholars and I agree with them) where he repeats
> "Asii" as "Pasiani". The correct reading is in Justin.****
The reading as 'Asii' as 'Pasiani', you mean?
GK: Yes. The theory that "Pasiani" is an alternate reading on the margin which somehow found its way into the main text. According to my current view, "Adrias" might have started that way, and then simply have been substituted for "Tyras". Maybe the copyist was familiar with Mithradates' final plans of 63 BCE.****
> which took place when Khersonesos appealed to Mithridates for help
> against the (same?) barbarians, ie in 110-108 BCE.
>
> GK: There is a brief lacuna in the Diophantes inscription after
> he recaptures Neapolis from the Scythians in 108. But no intimation
> of any further campaigns beyond the isthmus, just an expedition to
> solidify the position of Mithradates in Bosporus. And then the
> glorious inscription.
Yes, I saw it. Now imagine a similar statue with inscription for Generals Patton or Eisenhower as liberator somewhere in France. Would it necessarily mention his campaign in North Africa?
****GK: Are you suggesting that the Pontics campaigned across the isthmus before the events recounted in the Diophantes inscription? (:=)))***
Khersonesos ended up losing its freedom to Mithridates. Why mention the fact that their very liberator was hemming them in with his other conquests?
> This was preparatory to a campaign against the Romans.
>
> GK: Which fits in quite well with the events of 88 as described
> in Appian. And with the Plutarch quote about 91-88.
Yes it would have. Unfortunately Strabo places it in 110 - 108 BCE.
****GK: Well what he says is that Chersonesos was only fully incorporated at a time when Mithradates campaigned actively across the isthmus, preparatory to his Roman war. Now clearly he never reached the Adriatic, neither then nor at any time (not even in 88ff.). But Strabo is not talking about dreams but about actual deeds. The only thing that seems to fit (again not in 110-108, but in 91-89) is a campaign against Bastarnians and Sarmatians (Iazyges), if one emends "Adrias" to "Tyras".****
Torsten